Posted on 01/11/2009 3:52:07 PM PST by TornadoAlley3
Kaczynski? Manifesto? What? I have been saying from the beginning that I hold minority views on personal freedom and risk tolerance. So 10th amendment concerns? I have repeatedly said that my neighbors get the laws they want. I am not arguing a constitutional argument that I should be able to do whatever I want to do. I am arguing a philosophical argument that balances risk and freedom. That is vastly different than trying to make a constitutional argument that my neighbors don’t have the right to make idiotic laws. My argument is that most in this country demand a highly controlled environment where risk is minimized and by consequence freedom curtailed. I am appealing to you stylin19a to 1. Be willing to accept more risk. 2. Be very wary of empowering the government in a behavioral modification role. 3. Take your personal freedoms seriously and accept the risk inherent with less law. My argument is a philosophical argument. I know I am in the minority.
Kaczynski? So everyone that has a different comfort level of risk and personal freedom is a Kaczynski? Absurd. Pant Load.
You ask very thoughtful questions about where the lines for behavior should be drawn. Those are good questions. Open for discussion on case by case basis and generally complicated. Every time a law is enacted, for instance seat belt laws, compliance is compulsory and ultimately enforced with a gun. Does my counseling great caution in enacting additional behavior modification laws make me Kaczynski?
Ok, thats funny! lol
Remember, a large percentage of the American public is certifiably insane.
Well, that’s about the only thing you have said that we can agree on. The rest, not so much.
And I apologize for assuming things about your discussion that were not in evidence.
I also apologize for the Statist remark, as that is also not in evidence. The Statist remark was also over the top and unwarranted. I remember seeing an art deco court house building in a small town in Oklahoma. It shocks me every time I see it. In relief, in concrete on the side of the court house are the words:
“The highest duty is service to the state”
It makes me ill. The State after all is not God. The State is full of fallible humans, the blind leading the blind in search of a relevant thought. To empower an entity such as this scares me.
Escalating fines is not the same thing as adding a law for something already illegal. Here let me help you as you have difficulties fittings analogous thoughts together:
Adding a new law IE making it illegal to use a cell phone for driving because you may run a red light (running red lights and running over people in walkways is already illegal) is analogous to making it illegal to carry a gun into a school even though it is already illegal to shoot people at random, whether in a school or not.
Years ago I was a trained professional OTR driver. What went on in the cab of the truck was much more chaotic than in a car yet truckers manage it every day. That being said I could shift through 10 gears, drink a coke, have a smoke, and ask for directions on the radio while driving. In the rig my tape player was mounted above the visor actually GMC put a place there just for them.
It's simple to use a cell phone safely while driving. Put the phone in your road line of sight so you don't look away from the road.. Also use speaker or a headset. Mount the phone and keep it there. Mine never comes off the dash mount when driving and I do use mine. I also use speed dial. Two keys and I'm connected. IOW cell phones IF mounted in a vehicle at the top of the dash are reasonably safe.
I did pull over the other night to take a call due to terrain issues. First thing that happened was approaching blue lights and a spot light in my face asking with an officer what was I doing? Yes they too use cells while driving. They also use computers believe it or not and radios as well.
The near misses causes I had involving other vehicles when driving a rig in the 80's are the same reasons today in my van.
The list. Merging Morons as I call them. The ones who get on the entrance ramp of a very busy fast moving traffic flow interstate and not once look back at the traffic. Instead they at a slower than traffic speed Doddle on out to where the merge lane ends and ready or not over into traffic they come at a slower speed. Don't try to be nice to such as these and let them in way before thet point. The blasted idiots won't come over and will only get you rear ended.
The lonesome blind spot driver. The Doofus who likes to get in the blind spots of trucks and vans then stay there. I always make three speed changes before changing lanes into my blind spot and signal before beginning. There always seems to be the one driver who just can't get a clue and sticks there right with ya. He's the one who blares down on the horn and looks at you like what is your problem?
Next is the Signal-less swerving in and out of lanes driver. The ones who never signal a lane change but always cut you off doing so. Next on the list is the headless driver in the Oldsmobuickalic who is driving a car three sizes too big for them and scared to death as their top end speed of 45 in the left lane is proof. They can't even see over the steering wheel. And the real fun begins when they try to park the tank.
Next on the list? The two footed braking Automatic Transmission car driver. You know. Thee ones who don't seem to comprehend that you use only your right foot for braking and aceleration? No these turkeys drive with both feet one on the brake the other on the gas. You can tell because the brake light goes off and on off and on despite traffic moving at a normal flow. Then they get you. You take your eyes elsewhere for a micro second to deal with the others aboved mentioned and then DOOFY the two footer driver actually does then slow down fast or stops again usually for no reason.
Oh yes last but not least the hurry up, pull out into traffic, and then crawl driver. The one who pulls out of a side road in front of you as you are almost at the point of passing by them then they doddle while you and the cars behind you lock down to avoid hitting them and each other. Speed up? Shucks No, they're not in any hurry.
There is a law on the books in most states for reckless driving which would cover giving a cell phone your undivided attention rather than driving. Why do we need more laws? We Don't. We have enough Nanny Laws on the books now and three quarters of those are as I mentioned earlier written for Insurers profit loss protection.
Unfortunately, this seems to happen most often with drivers who mysteriously have no real assets.
Or they are a corporate {as in high up} officer for a Fortune 500 company and have State Farm to boot. True story of a red light runner. The kind of red light that strobes and this was at on a clear night. He was in a Beamer and in a big hurry. No cell phone involved. He T-Boned a family member of mines car. The injuries required several operations for that family member. The settlement over two years later was $15K over the hospital bills. He had no assets ya see.
That reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw once... "Don't drink & drive. You might spill your beer!"
Mark
I can tell horror stories of watching people with cell phones and driving. I drive a van pool to work and will not answer my phone. Whoever rides shotgun answers for me. The riders had a contest of who uses cells more - men or women, and the women were more likely to use the phone 60% - 75% every time. Needless to say, that contest lasted only a week or so.
One day we were on a three lane freeway, and traffic was slower than usual. I noticed two cars in the right and center lanes with NOTHING ahead of them. We got to an area with four lanes, and as we passed them, they were both on phones.
Another trip home, I told my riders that the driver ahead must be drunk, crossing the center line of a four lane road, and almost running off the right shoulder at times. Suddenly, she started driving normally again, AFTER she turned off the phone.
How about skill testing? We allow people to drive cars, but only if they can pass a test that involves skillful use of a vehicle. How about a test that uses a camera to analyze if a person feels a deep-seated 'need' to look at a cell phone while talking on the damn thing? Eliminate those people from driving while on a cell phone, and you'll see a major decline in phone-related accidents.
Some people are quite able to speak on a phone and still keep their attention on the road. If the nannies ban cell phone use, they'll go after your GPS next, and we'll be back to people using Mapquest printouts read from their steering wheels.
I have thought about this whole thing, and here’s my conclusion.....
As much as I hate big bro telling me what to do, there are certain times that laws are implemented for the good of all. Stop signs, no U turns, yield, and even speed limits are basically the same thing - rules of the road which are implemented for safety.
I don’t think it’s so much when one talks on the phone, but looking for it when it rings, phoning someone back, etc. Heck, I have known people to text while driving, glancing back and forth from phone to road. You can rear-end someone pretty quickly if not paying attention all the time.
Some people are pretty careless, and if it takes a law to protect ME from their stupidity, then that’s fine. I just consider it another rule of the road.
According to the Hamilton Police, it has not yet become law. So, you are correct and I was not paying attention. They expect it will go into effect soon, but nobody knows exactly when. Have a good one!
If you have it handy on the seat next to you, and pressing any button "answers" it, then how is that so much different from talking with a passenger next to you? Again, some folks can do both of them perfectly fine, some seem to have an inability to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Heck, I have known people to text while driving, glancing back and forth from phone to road.
To me, texting is stupid anyway, just about anything that can be texted can be spoken. But it is especially stupid while driving, and I would love to see draconian penalties applied to texting drivers.
I just consider it another rule of the road.
We did that with seat belts, at first they were just a "secondary" violation in most jurisdictions. In other words, the cops couldn't stop you for that, but if the pinched you for something else, they could tack the seat belt charge onto the primary one. We've seen that same evolution with cell phones.
There are some things that are inherently unsafe while done in certain circumstances, while perfectly safe to do in others. In highway traffic, where there are limited intersections, and a constant speed is maintained, cell phone use is relatively safe, except for the "lookers" who have a sick compulsion to look at the phone while using it. (Just what the H*** do they expect to see?) The same is true for a packed highway, where everything is moving at less than five MPH, you don't need a lot of reaction time at those speeds. However, navigating downtown streets is another story, it makes sense to limit phone usage in those places.
Instead of "one law fits all", why not differentiate based on individual skill, and the place where the phone is being used? We do that with all kinds of driving behaviors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.